From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Nelson Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 08:13:49 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] Running mx6qsabrelite at 1Gz with Freescale kernel rel_imx_3.0.35_4.1.0 In-Reply-To: <201403220233.50340.marex@denx.de> References: <1395142110.53282ddeee751@imp.free.fr> <532C8954.3010409@free.fr> <532CC22A.3050802@boundarydevices.com> <201403220233.50340.marex@denx.de> Message-ID: <532DA8AD.6040300@boundarydevices.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Thanks Marek, On 03/21/2014 06:33 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > On Friday, March 21, 2014 at 11:50:18 PM, Eric Nelson wrote: > > [...] > >>> 1) The kernel (old, I know) I am using does not like that PCIe to have >>> been formerly probed by u-boot. It hangs at probing if so. >> >> We haven't had any trouble with our boundary-imx_3.0.35_4.1.0 branch >> (which is based on rel_imx_3.0.35_4.1.0): >> >> https://github.com/boundarydevices/linux-imx6/tree/boundary- > imx_3.0.35_4.1 >> .0 >> >> You might give that a pin and see if it works for you. Troy did >> make some modifications to PCIe in that tree. > > Let me remind you about that PCIe reset pin [1] again ... so, did you wire your > PCIe slot's nRESET line or not on this design? Do you operate the nRESET > correctly ? > :) It's a little late in the game for that, with lots of boards in the wild. >>> Thus I have to patch my kernel, or add an environment variable to not >>> initialize PCIe when set, in order to keep compatible with old kernels. >>> >> > For now, in order to boot, I have temporary disabled PCIe support >> > in U-boot. >> >> Thanks for the ping. >> >> Marek, I didn't catch that you had enabled PCIE by default. > > Maybe Stefano applied the patch which enabled the PCIe on SL ? No worries. > If you want it disabled, just submit a patch, either way WFM. > >> Since there aren't any peripherals which depend on this, and >> even the PCIe daughter board is an extra-cost item, I'd >> prefer to leave this disabled and require the user to enable >> it specifically. >> >> AFAIK, you're the only one who's tested this. > > Didn't you guys also test that ? But yes, I'm OK either way, feel > free to send a patch. > Right. We did test. What I should have said was that we're not "using" this feature... Patch on the way. > [...] > > [1] http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-February/172496.html > > Best regards, > Marek Vasut >